SUBHASH MANDAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR
LAWS(PAT)-2019-5-125
HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Decided on
May 15,2019
Subhash Mandal
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF BIHAR
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
ANURAG BAITHA V. THE STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]STATE OF HARYANA V. HASMAT [REFERRED TO]
SATYENDRA KUMAR MEHRA V.STATE OF JHARKHAND [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRA SHEKHAR BHARTI V. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
MITHU PASI V. STATE OF JHARKHAND [REFERRED TO]
JUMMAN BANSA HAZARA SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
KASHMIRA SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
BABU SINGH VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF TAMIL NADU VS. A JAGANATHAN [REFERRED TO]
BHAGWAN RAMA SHINDE GOSAI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
BHAGWAN RAMA SHINDE GOSAI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
RAMJI PRASAD VS. RATTAN KUMAR JAISWAL [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. KAJAD [REFERRED TO]
VINAY KUMAR VS. NARENDRA [REFERRED TO]
KISHORILAL VS. RUPA [REFERRED TO]
VASANT TUKARAM PAWAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
SURINDER SINGH ALIAS SHINGARA SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
RAVIKANT S PATIL VS. SARVABHOUMA S BAGALI [REFERRED TO]
GOMTI VS. THAKURDAS [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. MADHUKAR WAMANRAO SMARTH [REFERRED TO]
SIDHARTH VASHISHT ALIAS MANU SHARMA VS. STATE NCT OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]
ANGANA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
ANIL ARI VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
IMTIYAZ AHMAD VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
ASH MOHAMMAD VS. RAJ SINGH @ LALLA BABU [REFERRED TO]
THANA SINGH VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF NARCOTICS [REFERRED TO]
NOOR MOHAMMED VS. JETHANAND [REFERRED TO]
ATUL TRIPATHI VS. STATE OF U.P. [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. SALMAN KHAN [REFERRED TO]
ANITA KUSHWAHA VS. PUSHAP SUDAN [REFERRED TO]
HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
SANDEEP @ RAJA ACHARYA VS. STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED TO]
SUDDU KUMAR, SON OF BALESHWAR RAI VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
KUMAR TRIVEDI -
(1.)Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned APP.
(2.)Against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28/31-07-2017 relating to S.T. No. 351/2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-FTC-II, Katihar holding the accused guilty for an offence punishable under Section 376, 342 of the IPC and directed to undergo RI for 8 years as well as to pay fine along with default clause under Section 376 IPC, no separate sentence was passed with regard to Section 342 IPC, the convicts have preferred three Criminal Appeals (SJ) Nos.2828/2017, 2663/2017 and 2522/2017. After admission of the respective appeals, prayer for bail was made at their end asking for suspension of sentence till pendency of the respective appeals and, after considering the materials available on the record, vide order dated 21.12.2017, the same was rejected.
(3.)It is apparent that on behalf of appellants of Cr.Appeal (SJ) No. 2363/2017 an Interlocutory Application bearing No. 02/2019 has been filed in order to stay of realization of fine till pendency of the appeal under the garb of principle decided by the Apex Court in the case of Satyendra Kumar Mehra v.State of Jharkhand reported in 2018(2) PLJR 260 SC.
(2.)Against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28/31-07-2017 relating to S.T. No. 351/2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-FTC-II, Katihar holding the accused guilty for an offence punishable under Section 376, 342 of the IPC and directed to undergo RI for 8 years as well as to pay fine along with default clause under Section 376 IPC, no separate sentence was passed with regard to Section 342 IPC, the convicts have preferred three Criminal Appeals (SJ) Nos.2828/2017, 2663/2017 and 2522/2017. After admission of the respective appeals, prayer for bail was made at their end asking for suspension of sentence till pendency of the respective appeals and, after considering the materials available on the record, vide order dated 21.12.2017, the same was rejected.
(3.)It is apparent that on behalf of appellants of Cr.Appeal (SJ) No. 2363/2017 an Interlocutory Application bearing No. 02/2019 has been filed in order to stay of realization of fine till pendency of the appeal under the garb of principle decided by the Apex Court in the case of Satyendra Kumar Mehra v.State of Jharkhand reported in 2018(2) PLJR 260 SC.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.